Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Fan publications * Who's Who in Star Trek (book) * The Physics of Star Trek * To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek * Life Signs: The Biology of Star Trek * The Best of Trek These are non-Paramount licensed books. Other such books are collected on the Fan publications page, so, these should logically be merged into that page. There are likely more, but these are the ones that I've come across to date. -- Sulfur 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC) :These are not truly "fan" publications as they are published by reputable publishers (at least those I am familiar with). I am unclear why Paramount licensing is the touchstone for inclusion in the database. I would say, for those published by major publishing houses (not paid for by the author him or herself, in other words) to Keep. Aholland 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC) If not to merge/delete, and to keep as is, it might be an idea to perhaps create some sort of identification that they are "non-licensed" items, or at least non-Paramount. I'm also not saying that we should only have Paramount licensed items here, but that we should at least distinguish between "official" stuff, and not-quite "official" stuff. -- Sulfur 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ::They may not be officially licensed, but unlike fan films and the like, these books were published by official, professional publications. I think we should either keep these or, if that's not good, then move them to a list for unofficial publications or something. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Hrm... I see the points brought up here. Perhaps a category of unofficial publications (or something as such) could be created and used to indicate these non-licensed, but still published items. -- Sulfur 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC) * Weak keep, and I can think of a couple other ones that would be on this list and just don't have pages yet that I've seen in book stores ("The Religion of Star Trek", and maybe those trivia books? Actually those may be liscenced, I'm not sure.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep, they are already non-canon. Yes, they aren't licensed, but they seem pretty professional (well, at least Physics of Star Trek is). I would not call them "fan publications". --OuroborosCobra talk 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Fermion ;Fermion * Delete -- uncited. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC) * Delete, unless someone can find a reference for it. I haven't been able to find one myself. --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) * Delete --OuroborosCobra talk 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete, though if someone wants to check TNG: "The Next Phase" it might be worth a look. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Verdens Gang Uncited and orphaned. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' no cite, orphaned, and as far as I can tell it does not exist in Star Trek. Also, the creator's IP address indicates that he is located in Norway himself. Coincidence? ;-) --OuroborosCobra 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC) * Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Livingstone This article title is misspelled, the fish was Livingston. Also, there is already an article on Picard's fish, located at Livingston (fish). The article is also now orphaned --OuroborosCobra 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC) *wouldn't it be easier to just turn it into a redirect rather than listing it here?--152.163.101.14 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :*I don't think so. Nothing links to it, and it is a misspelling to begin with. I don't see the need to create a redirect for something that is orphaned and misspelled. I still say delete. --OuroborosCobra 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC) :Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC) ::Why can't this just be speedy deleted?--152.163.101.14 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :::It can be, at the time that I nominated it, I did not know how to do that. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete, in case it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (though it probably does.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. Now go away, ya bother me. :-P --From Andoria with Love 01:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC) IKS Vor'cha This should have been deleted along with IKS K't'inga and IRW D'deridex and I am quite frankly surprised to still see it here. As the page clearly states: :"Although the Vor'cha itself was never seen or mentioned, we can infer that it existed based on Klingon Empire's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype." There is no evidence to support this. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC) :Delete. --From Andoria with Love 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' Sounds like there was already a debate on this that I missed, but the only evidence of naming like this I know of is for Federation ships, not Klingon (with the sole exception of the IKS Negh'Var of course). --OuroborosCobra talk 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ** As I stated, there is no evidence that the Klingons do this-- the Negh'Var was never called a prototype, it was simply the new flagship-- hence Negh'Var type vs. Negh'Var class. The Enterprise-D was the new flagship at one time and it was never a prototype of its class. --Alan del Beccio 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC) ***Like I said, I missed that whole debate. Thanks for setting me straight. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete per nom. MatthewFenton 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Klingon language - babel category/templates Category:User tlh, Template:User tlh-0, Template:User tlh-1, Template:User tlh-2, Template:User tlh-3, Template:User tlh-4 *I may be wrong, but I don't recall a discussion on the creation of this category. --Alan del Beccio 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC) :I'm not sure, but I think this has already been deleted before, possibly making this a candidate for immediate deletion. In any case, delete. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' 'em all. --From Andoria with Love 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' per nom. MatthewFenton 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' and stop the Klingophobic deletions. What if someone really does speak Klingon? **If someone wants to start a Klingon category, they can do so at . There is no anti-Klingon racism on this board, so don't make it ethnic! (Actually, I've never trusted Klingons.. and I never will. I can never forgive them.. for the death of my boy). -- Captain M.K.B. 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :*All Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Katarus As the article so blatantly points out, it's "APOCRYPHAL". Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Also, might want to tell the anon who created it to not remove the mark for deletion. I've restored it. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Keep, from Serpant Slayer, the anon who posted this article. Shran, you and all Andorians are now my mortal enemies for all eternity. I shan't rest until the oceans of Andoria are red with your blood...blue with your blood, or...bluer. * I believe the proper spelling is Ktaris. --Alan del Beccio 02:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Delete definitely in it's current form. Was this a redirect before? If not/so, was it spelled this way in one of it's mentionings? But yeah, this article is just a longwinded nitpicking. (Normal "K'tarian/Katarian" nitpicking is a couple paragraphs shorter than this.) Hm, reading it again, I do believe we're being insulted in that third paragraph... - AJ Halliwell 03:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * I'm not insulting you AJ, I'm merely stating facts. - Serpant Slayer :*Since it's also an incorrectly spelled, non-canon version of Ktaris, that just makes it all the more imperitive to delete it. Personally, I think it qualifies for an immediate delete. --From Andoria with Love 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC) * Since you all seem bent on destroying my page I propose a compromise. You already have a stub called Ktaris. I shall add my theory to that page. Even though it's never stated on star trek that there are two species called Ktarians, it's never stated that there's not. You only mention that some fans believe that there are two species called Ktarians, and in my opinion this needs to be elaborated upon. And I didn't spell Katarus. It was a link on the page Child's Play that didn't exist, and I merely fulfilled the pages request by entering my theory.- Serpant Slayer :*Before doing that, I would suggest adding your theory to the article's talk page, stating your wish that it be added to the article. We here at Memory Alpha tend not to involve too much fan speculation and theories in our articles. Not that I haven't stretched the limits of that rule from time to time (I try not to, though), but just to let you know that if any part of an article, even background info, is heavy on fan speculation then it will likely be removed. So, yeah, I'd add what you intend to say to the talk page first and see what other's say. --From Andoria with Love 15:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Delete per nom. MatthewFenton 17:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Hazard ops I do believe that this is a non-canon term from the computer game Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force. Thus, delete. Note that if the article is deleted, the link from the Starfleet page will also need to be removed. - Intricated 14:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', per Intricated. --From Andoria with Love 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' Yes it is from Elite Force, also it doesnt merit an article for a non-canon thing. MatthewFenton 17:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', although there should be (and probably already is) a note about thid in Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force, maybe the comic as well (I haven't read it, but it is probably there as well). --OuroborosCobra talk 22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' And no note about it in the comic, cause it isn't mentioned in the comic, just the game. :) - AJ Halliwell 01:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' This term does not appear at all during the Voyager television series --Dr. Floyd 23:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Administrative Operations ;Administrative Operations Created by the same anon who made Hazard ops. I have seen this around the web a few times, usually created because it is assumed it must exist if there is a Hazard ops. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC) :Comment: I wondered whether to nominate AO for deletion when I noticed the hazard ops page, so I looked in the Starfleet's history to see who/why/when AO was added to the list of agencies. It appears that an Anon added it, and cited DS9: "Paradise Lost" as the reference. The page for G. Mignaccia mentions the AO as seen on-screen, but it is not mentioned in the script. - Intricated 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Comment Well, if that is the case, and I think it needs to be confirmed, the article still would need to be re-written. RIght now it says it is the "office is responsible for running starfleet" --OuroborosCobra talk 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::Comment: Someone with the DS9 DVDs can confirm, even get a screenshot. So I'm sure all those PNAs definitely have a place for the time being. - Intricated 04:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Keep: Administrative Operations is seen among many other Starfleet agencies on the personnel assignment log in "Paradise Lost". I added two screenshots of that log showing all names seen to the page. May the creation of new Starfleet officers and agencies pages begin! ;-) --Jörg 10:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep now that the source is covered fully. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep as per above. Thanks Jörg for your amazing screencapping skills. - Intricated 17:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::Keep, but the article still needs to be re-written. It is still making assumptions about what AO does that cannot be inferred from these screenshots. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC) :::Comment: OK then, go ahead and re-write it. Be bold in updating pages; we ain't stopping you. :) - Intricated 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ::::Comment I would, but I don't have a source for what they do either ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 14:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Non-canon name redirects A bunch of redirect were created today for non-canon names to redirect to the canon name article. These names seem to mostly come from the CCGs, if I am not mistaken: * Audit's Spoils * Aurulent * Janitza class * Na'Far class * Perikian class * Ma-Karn class Do we really need them? They are non-canon, after all. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC) *That doesn't mean they don't exist bud. You can't just yell "non-canon" and pretend things aren't within reason for being typed into the search box. Err on the side of accessibility. - :I would just like to say that I did not just "yell non-canon". I put them up for a vote. If the community votes in favor of keeping them, I will accept that. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment', if we do choose to keep these, we must ensure that we add them to the non-canon redirect page. -- Sulfur 02:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :I say keep them -- but we must make sure they stay orphaned except by games, novels and comics. Non-canon names should not be linked to from main article text. We aren't trying to say that non-canon doesn't exist -- we are trying to keep it out of articles, however ;) -- Captain M.K.B. 13:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Template:APOV I suspect this is some sort of vandalism, or at least, another complication added to this site that really seems unnecessary considering the intent of MA is to accurately present information as it is presented in the series. Whether or not we have succeeded at it in some of the articles in question is a completely different bag. --Alan del Beccio 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' --OuroborosCobra talk 04:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. I'll also say again, there is no such word as "alternatility", so exactly what the hell is being disputed. --From Andoria with Love 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. I have absolutely no idea what an "alternatality dispute" might be. Also delete the category used. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Template:NPOV Similar to the above template, this one is a (currently orphaned) message about an existing "neutrality dispute" - another thing we didn't yet have here, and probably don't need. -- Cid Highwind 09:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': Unlike APOV, this one actually makes some sense. I can see the possibility of needing this, although perhaps changed to be "PNA-NPOV". I'm not sure if it is really needed, PNA on its own might work, as long as comments are left in the talk page to explain a reason (one of my biggest problems with the PNAs is that people put them up without doing this, so no one knows what is needed to fix or takedown the PNA). --OuroborosCobra talk 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Unnamed Vulcans (25th century) All of its contents are already in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). In addition, the only Vulcans here are members of Starfleet, and therefore belong in Unnamed Starfleet personnel (future). As an example, there are no starfleet officers listed in Unnamed Vulcans (24th century). --OuroborosCobra talk 11:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Template:If Since the parser functions are now working properly, Template:If is no longer needed. All occurrences have been replaced by #if. -- Renegade54 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Gerald Ford Never mentioned in Star Trek. The reason it is put up is in the articles talk page,and while interesting, still provides no evidence of a Star Trek reference. The citations in the article are invalid. They are citations as to when the Space Shuttle Enterprise was shown in Star Trek. While Gerald Ford may have signed the order to build the Enterprise in our world, this is never mentioned in canon in Star Trek, and not in those citations. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Well he is mentioned in the Star Trek tributes and Enterprise (OV-101) pages as having named the space shuttle Enterprise, the latter half in the background section. Perhaps the second paragraph of this article should be put in a background section in a similar fashion that some info about other US Presidents such as Ronald Reagan have background sections which discuss the real life background a President has to Star Trek even if he isnt officially mentioned or even shown as some presidents are in Storm Front: Part II. So because of the Storm Front scene there is already a precedent set for Presidents not listed by name having a page, otherwise the most recent US president listed by name in cannon Star Trek is Nixon.